5. Interacting threats and challenges in protecting danau sentarum.

Heri, Valentinus ; Yuliani, Elizabeth Linda ; Indriatmoko, Yayan 等

Danau Sentarum was declared a conservation area by the government in 1981, was established as a Ramsar wetland conservation area in 1984 and became a 132,000 ha national park with a 65,000 ha buffer zone in 1999. But being named a wetland of international importance and having national park status do not mean that Danau Sentarum receives more attention and better management. Forest cover within and around the park is declining rapidly. The fish stocks and water quality of the wetlands and river network are threatened. Logging has left large tracts of open land, destroyed wildlife habitat and reduced wildlife populations. The Pulau Majang forest, formerly an orangutan habitat, is now devoid of orangutans. Tree felling and land clearing have also triggered human-animal conflict, apparently because forest food sources have fallen drastically, forcing wild animals to seek food in human settlements.

This paper aims to identify the interacting threats and underlying causes of the ecosystem degradation and declining resources. The research serves as a baseline study for a larger research project: Promoting Good Governance of Protected Areas Management, being conducted by CIFOR and Riak Bumi Foundation since early 2005.

Site Description

The Danau Sentarum wetlands comprise approximately 83 large and small lakes interconnected by rivers, and partly covered by peat swamp forest (Jeanes). Part of the region is surrounded by hill forest with high-value tree species, including ramin (Gonystylus spp.), tengkawang (Shorea spp.), meranti (dipterocarps), tembesu (Fagraea fragrans) and other timber species (Giesen 2000). The hill and swamp forests in DSNP are habitat for endangered wildlife, including orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus), long-tailed macaques (Macacafascicularis) and numerous rare bird and reptile species (Jeanes and Meijaard 2000a; Sebastian 2000; van Balen and Dennis 2000; Russon et al. 2001).

The Danau Sentarum wetlands are the largest contributor to the West Kalimantan freshwater fish industry, accounting for 26.8 percent of these products in 2006 (West Kalimantan Fisheries Office no date), though the proportion has likely fallen in the past few decades. In addition to being a source of freshwater fish for consumption, DSNP is also home to ornamental fish such as the clown loach, and a center for breeding super red Asian arowana as well as various other species of ornamental fish for export. The park and its environs also have mineral reserves, particularly gold, though on a small scale.

Most communities around the lakes are Malay, and the majority of them are made up of fishing families. Historically, their ancestors came only to catch fish during the dry season. The oldest settlement, according to the locals, is Lupakmawang hamlet, where the founder of the Selimbau Kingdom originated. Other inhabitants are Iban Dayaks, who practice dryland cultivation but also fish for both food and extra income.

The park now is formally managed by the Danau Sentarum National Park Authority and is under the Ministry of Forestry, but the people living inside the park come under subdistrict and district administration. (1) Located in Kapuas Hulu district, the park is divided among the four subdistricts of Selimbau, Embau, Batang Lupar and Badau. The park's buffer zone is categorized as Area Peruntukan Lain (APL, other land use), which also falls under the district government's responsibilities and can be allocated by the district government for development schemes.

As described by Wadley and Eilenberg (2006), natural resource management in the borderland of West Kalimantan is influenced strongly by vigilantes and gangsters. Martinez (1994) noted that the lban who live in the borderland have the feeling of being pulled in several directions at once, but that the strength of the pull depends on the degree of interaction and relations on both sides.

Methodology

The study relies on primary data collected through in-depth interviews, participatory rural appraisal (PRA), and direct observation on the ground; as well as on secondary sources, including published articles, unpublished field notes, and project reports. Informants selected for the in-depth interviews were people identified as having a deep understanding of the topics and issues. The research team visited several hamlets and asked informants for their opinions and about their experiences. PRA was conducted in five villages (Pulau Majang, Leboyan, Semalah, Pelaik and Tekenang), chosen because the study team has had good relations with them and therefore could expect openness. Participants were asked to describe their village history per decade since the 1960s. Important events, such as the reform movement and the resignation of Suharto, served as points of reference to help community members identify and remember the years. The

authors made direct observations on the ground, looking at the condition of forests and waterways, and used these observations to determine topics for interviews, supplement existing data and check the reliability of information gathered from informants.

[FIGURE 1a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 1b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Results and Discussion

Our study shows that some major threats remain the same as were reported by Jeanes (1997), Giesen and Aglionby (2000), Dudley (2000), and Wadley (2000): large-scale oil palm plantations, commercial logging, unsustainable fishing practices, human population growth, and permanent human settlements. The underlying causes, the actors and power dynamics behind the threats, however, are different. The threats to Danau Sentarum ecosystems have been greatly influenced by complex and interrelated factors: market-driven decision-making at all levels, open-access resources, lack of law enforcement and contradictory and incoherent policies. We also found new threats emerging from the changing political situation, including regional fragmentation and local elite politics. Those threats, underlying causes and the dynamics are described below.

Commercial Logging

Here, we do not mean the cutting of trees to meet community needs for houses, boats, and other necessities. The intensity of noncommercial uses is far lower than that of commercial logging, and given the still comparatively low population density, it appears to have an insignificant impact on the forest, although increasing human population, as reported by Indriatmoko (this volume), has to some extent intensified noncommercial logging.

Our study reveals that for commercial logging, the intensity, the actors involved, and the logging methods around DSNP have changed over time. In general, commercial logging can be divided into three periods: 1980-1997, when logging was dominated by concession companies; 1997-2005, a period characterized by illegal logging; and 2005-2009, when commercial timber harvesting has been officially stopped but logging is still practiced, largely to clear land for monoculture plantations.

1980-1997. This was the golden era for giant timber concessions, whose owners were powerful and often backed-up or even owned by the army. Seven timber concession companies held hakpenguasaan hutan (HPHs, timber concession permit) around DSNP: PT Rimba Ramin, PT Lanjak Deras, PT Satya Djaya Raya, PT Bumi Raya, PT Kapuas Sakti Utama and PT Tawang Meranti, all owned by Indonesian conglomerates; and PT Yamaker (PT Yamaker or Yayasan Maju Kerja), a military-owned HPH. (2) Concession areas included peat swamp forest in the Suhaid, Empanang, Badau, Seriang, Tangit IV, Senunuk, Sumpak, Meliau, Manggin, Sungai Jaung, Pengerak, Kepiat, Jongkong, Selimbau, and along Leboyan and Belitung watersheds; and peat swamp forest around Bukit Telatap, Bukit Menyukung, and Bukit Semujan; and the sacred forest, Hutan Nung (Jeanes 1997).

At the time, there was no demand for logs smaller than 40 cm in diameter or for logs with holes. So, despite being cut, these were never transported. The rest of the timber was transported to Pontianak via lakes and rivers. Light species were transported by raft, while heavier species were moved on pontoon boats. Laborers came from waterside hamlets and used a relay system to transport wood downstream from one hamlet to the next.

Some communities and local business people who also operated commercial logging on a much smaller scale were considered thieves; some were caught and tried under the law. Local communities who had lived there for generations saw this as unjust.

1997-2005. The rapid political and institutional changes of this period led to intensified commercial logging, both legal and illegal. The Asian economic crisis hit Indonesia in 1997, and some logging companies ceased operations completely. Others found their permits revoked because their concession areas fell inside the new park's expanded boundaries. The international demand for Indonesian wood continued, however.

Malaysian brokers took advantage of the situation by exploiting timber from Indonesian forests, including those in and around DSNP. The situation was exacerbated with the fall of the Suharto regime in 1998 and the ensuing political turbulence. Reformasi, which originally meant freedom from Suharto's dictatorial regime, was misinterpreted by some as freedom to violate rules and break the law. Autonomy regulations that went into effect in January 2001 spawned the traditional community autonomy movement and to some extent facilitated "illegal" logging (Wadley and Eilenberg 2005).

Legal logging also caused rapid forest degradation during this period. At the end of 1999, the government issued 100 ha hak pemungutan hasil hutan (HPHHs, forest product extraction concession), giving timber businesses opportunities to form community cooperatives. Previously, only companies with licenses were allowed to extract forest products, while locals worked only as laborers. The community cooperative HPHH concession areas were on the former Yarnaker timber company concession.

Both legal and illegal timber was bought from local communities, processed in mini-sawmills, and then exported through Malaysia by Malaysian businesspeople without legitimate Indonesian government documentation. Some local people were also involved by handing over their timber concessions or working for companies to facilitate shipments. Wood from in and around DSNP was transported via Lanjak and Badau in the northern part of the national park to Lubok Antu, across the border. On arrival in Batu Kaya, Malaysia, not far across the border, the wood was "legalized" with Malaysian government stamps to meet the export requirements of other countries. Timber transport via this route reached its peak in 2004 with 300 trucks passing daily. One truck could carry 1.4 to 3 tan (2.5 to 5.5 [m.sup.3], 1 tan = 1.8 [m.sup.3]), and thus approximately 750 to 1,650 [m.sup.3] of timber crossed the border every day.

Malaysian brokers set price classifications based on wood type (Table 1).

As the most valuable timber species became scarce, buyers shifted to less valuable species. In 1997, Malaysian brokers sought red meranti, meranti, ramin and jelutung. By 1999, these species were also becoming harder to find in forests, so buyers began asking for red wood species. By 2002, they were requesting almost all timber species. Such timber scarcity has led to exploitation of almost all types of timber, even lower quality species.

Only trees with a basal diameter of more than 25 cm were felled. These were sold in various dimensions, from 4 by 6 inches to 12 by 12 inches, in lengths of 10, 12 and 14 feet. Brokers asked for an additional 1.5 by 1.5 inches to avoid damage when the boles were cut by chainsaw, usually not far from where the trees were felled. Wood was then transported by bicycles along narrow, planked trails. One bicyclist could carry two lengths of these sizes. The laborers usually came from the Kalimantan District of Sambas and were well-known for their skill and strength. Some timber brokers set up mini-sawmills close to hamlets. Wood was carried to these sawmills on large trailers and cut into lengths of various measurements. Sawmill workers usually lived in nearby hamlets.

Local communities used the opportunities afforded by the timber trade, and they themselves were used by brokers: some sold timber from forests around their settlements with support from Malaysian investors, and some sold their forests directly to the Malaysians for certain compensations. People in one hamlet received one-time contributions--called sagu hati--of US$ 263 per family (a tidy sum, in this context). Each hamlet received RM 8 per tan of wood, and sawmill workers received a salary of RM 8 per person per day. In addition, the roads built to transport wood also served the hamlets.

The logging businesses were led by tauke (large-scale traders) based in Malaysia, who appointed field managers, also from Malaysia. The tasks of organizing employees and sharing premiums were delegated to people trusted by field managers, commonly local inhabitants who were lent certain amounts of Malaysian ringgit to supply wood to the tauke. It was these trusted employees who determined the logging and sawing operations and recruitment.

A typical answer, when people were asked why they had become involved in these logging activities, is given here:

 We never used to get anything or any share of the profits from the
 companies felling timber in our forest. Government officials would
 even say the wood around us belonged to the state, so the ones
 entitled to extract wood for commercial purposes were the timber
 companies with their government concessions.

In June 2005, the district government stopped tree cutting and wood sales. Logs that had been felled were later auctioned and could be transported and sold to Malaysia through September 2005. In October 2005, logs were still seen on roadsides, but the government strictly prohibited their transportation and sale to Malaysia.

Despite the government's strict stance, illicit small-scale logging continues. Local people, who had become used to having relatively large sums of money from timber, have had to readjust to being forest farmers and gatherers, only now their forests were degraded and it was difficult to find food and other non-timber forest products.

2005-2009. The most recent period has been marked by a decline in illegal logging; however, this has not meant a significant decline in the rate of deforestation. Logging continues, in new guises. In Suhaid and Selimbau Subdistricts, for example, large trees in community protected forests and old secondary forests have been cut, ostensibly to clear land. The wood was transported out of the area, without permission, and the case was reported by local people to the police and local government.

The region's natural resources have been overexploited by large businesses meeting market demand. Logging has opened large areas around Pulau Majang and Meliau hamlets and in the Kiren Nung protection forest. In Kapar, a hamlet in the buffer zone north of DSNP, many wild animals, including proboscis monkeys (Nasalis larvatus) and long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis), which prior to 2004 had not been a problem, are now considered pests that attack rice, corn, and fruit crops near the hamlet. This suggests that forest food sources have fallen drastically, forcing wild animals to seek food in human settlements. Some suspect these animals have moved closer to human habitation because they are afraid of the sound of chainsaws in the forest.

The political and policy changes from dictatorship to reform and decentralization have not yet led to better management of the forest. Lack of law enforcement has worsened the situation. The communities are left with feelings of injustice and inequity; they have struggled for their rights through involvement in illegal logging.

Illegal Trade and Gangster Practices

Cross-border trading, which is now illegal, has been going on for centuries and includes trade in timber, wildlife, and animal body parts (Jeanes 1997; Wadley et al. 2000). The illegal orangutan trade in DSNP was first noted in 1992, when two orangutans from Seriang Village were sold to the Batang Ai' Recreation Park in Sarawak (Erman 2005). That same year, Colfer (pers. commun.) saw some orangutans being sold in Putussibau. The orangutan trade increased along with the widespread timber sales to Sarawak, Malaysia.

In the past decade, live animal trade has been increasing and is associated with illegal logging. Timber brokers deal not only in wood but also in wildlife. The most frequently requested animals were orangutans, gibbons (Hylobates mulleri), deer (Cervus spp.), and myna birds (Gracula religiosa). From 2002 to 2005, approximately 100 to 200 young orangutans from in and around DSNP were held temporarily in illegal logging camps and eventually sold to zoological gardens in Sarawak. In addition, an estimated 100 to 150 orangutans were killed for food by timber company employees, particularly in Tangit IV, Tangit 11 and Sering (north); Piyam, Semanyus and Batu Pansap (west); and Semangit, Sei Luar and Lubuk Bandung (east).

A lack of government control over the use of natural resources, particularly during 1997-2005, has afforded huge opportunities for gangster practices (Wadley & Eilenberg 2006) and illegal trading of the park's natural resources to Malaysia. Rare and protected wildlife was easily traded in the border region, without supporting permits or official documents. The closest border towns, Badau in Indonesia and Lubok Antu in Malaysia, still have no legal border-crossing post. NGOs have worked in collaboration with police and the government to minimize illegal cross-border trading activities and have been successful in stopping illegal timber, but not yet trade in other natural resources.

Monoculture Plantations and Farming

Oil palm plantations. Large-scale oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) plantations belonging to about 20 companies and covering an area of 259,500 to 366,823 ha are currently the number one threat to Danau Sentarum's wetland ecosystems. All the pollutants from oil palm estates around DSNP are likely to flow into the wetland waterways, harming local people's livelihoods. In addition, conversion of forests and peat-swamp forests are likely to harm biodiversity and release carbon dioxide.

Oil palm plantations are not a new threat and were described by Wadley (2000). Several oil palm companies were granted permits in the 1990s and early 2000s. These companies built roads and cleared the forests, destroying habitat for hundreds of orangutans. Wood extracted from these forests was brought profitably to Malaysia, but the planned oil palm estates never materialized.

Aside from being a threat to biodiversity, establishment of the new oil palm plantations has raised questions about why more land should be allocated and cleared for oil palm when only a small number of oil palm estates have actually begun operations. By 2005, oil palm estate permits covering 5.8 million hectares had been granted across Kalimantan, but only 1.5 million hectares had been planted. In West Kalimantan, only 427,000 ha (28.47 percent) of the 1.5 million ha targeted for oil palm development had been planted. Nevertheless, by 2008 the government had issued permits covering 4.6 million ha (Kompas 2008).

The district government, the district legislative assembly, and several government officials supported the companies, which they hoped could contribute to economic progress and local development. Where law enforcement is weak and decisions are made for the benefit of corporations rather than local people and conservation, however, the actual contributions of the oil palm business to the economic progress and local development should be scrutinized. Pollutants from chemical fertilizers and pesticides from the plantations, and waste from oil palm processing plants will undoubtedly enter the waterways of Danau Sentarum's wetlands, causing the economic collapse of affected communities and irreversible damage to Indonesia's largest inland wetland. Effective environmental impact management is unlikely to be implemented by the companies, which have a history of illegal activities and corruption (see Yuliani et al., this volume).

Rubber and rice. Drastic declines in fish catches in recent years, coupled with the end of illegal logging in 2005 and a doubling of rubber prices in 2007 (from US$ .54 to US$1-1.14 per kg), have encouraged local people and the government to expand rubber plantations. As part of the district's rubber development scheme, the government provides hybrid varieties, which, unlike local rubber, die if planted on seasonally flooded land. Because people must plant these trees on higher ground, they clear lowland and hill forests. The hybrid varieties were developed for intensive monocultures; planting sites must be cleared of all other vegetation and given high applications of fertilizers and pesticides. The resulting monoculture rubber estates disrupt ecosystem balance and threaten biodiversity.

Based on our observations in the field, 155 households in the hamlets of Terunis and Pegah (3) in the Kiren Lintang region have cleared a total area of 70 by 100 meters. Larger areas have been cleared for planting rubber in Leboyan, Sekulat watersheds, Kiren Meresak and the foot of Semujan Hill. Various types of land have been cleared: former farmland, secondary forest (terrestrial and peat swamp), and old timber concession areas where regeneration and forest succession were underway. The land is frequently cleared using fire; some people say burning eradicates ants and other insect pests, enabling rubber to grow unimpeded.

The decision to plant rubber has been significantly driven by the market, without consideration of how to maintain the farmers' selling price and minimize the negative consequences to the environment. Fluctuating prices at the global level could cause big losses to the farmers and ecosystem. As a result of the global economic crisis, rubber prices fell in mid-2008 to US$ 0.5 per kg and had yet to rise by the end of 2009. Some farmers have started to look for substitutes, which could lead to another ecosystem damaged.

Another crop promoted by the district government is hybrid rice, which also requires high inputs to ensure growth and eliminate vegetative competition. The hybrid variety is provided by the Kapuas Hulu District Agriculture and Estate Crops Office in a package with chemical fertilizer, chemical pesticides, and simple farming tools, such as hoes and machetes. The first packages were delivered to 45 households from Pegah

and Terunis. Each household cleared roughly one hectare of forest. Since then, more and more villagers from Semalah, Semangit, Nangaleboyan, Pegah, Terunis and Sekulat hamlets have cleared land for rice farming as far away as Bukit Melingkung and the foot of Bukit Semujan.

One potential consequence of planting hybrid rubber and rice is the contamination of river and lake water from agricultural fertilizers and pesticides, many of which are deadly to fish, other aquatic life, birds, and insects, including wild honeybees (Apis dorsata). Because fish and honey are livelihood sources for communities in DSNP, such contamination will further reduce their income.

Road Construction

Road construction is beneficial, since it helps communities to transport their products and sell them in urban areas, but it also encourages exploitation of natural resources (Sunderlin and Resosudarmo 1996) and can directly harm the ecosystem if the work is not properly executed.

Roads have been built both by logging companies, often illegally, to carry logs out of the forests to the main road north of the park, and by the district government, to facilitate communities' mobility. Some roads were constructed through rivers, with no effort to minimize the negative impact on hydrology and water quality, even blocking the rivers entirely. Recent road-building projects are summarized in Table 3.

The table reveals an interesting feature: in a typical border area, the illegal activities that can be carried out with great freedom include large-scale construction projects like roads. One road that was built illegally was even extended and improved by the district government. This shows a serious lack of integrated land-use planning and long-term development vision in line with conservation priorities.

Unsustainable Fishery Practices

The DSNP wetlands are the most valuable freshwater fish habitat in West Kalimantan, where fish reproduce and grow naturally. This remote area also has endemic fish species rarely or never found in other places. Now, however, stocks and yields are in steady decline. Based on interviews with local informants, we found that between 1999 and 2006, catches fell by around 40 percent compared to the 1990-1999 period. As an illustration, 100 to 150 kg (4) of smoked fish was produced between 1990 and 1999, but by 2005-2006 the amount had fallen to 25 to 50 kg. The most drastic decline occurred in 2002, when the catch was only 35 percent of the previous year's. Suspected causes of declining fish stocks in DSNP are the use of fishing gear, cage culture of the giant snakehead fish, and declining natural habitats.

Our research shows that exploitative fishing practices (described below) have led to declines in fish stocks. Ironically (and predictably), the increasing difficulty of catching fish has pushed local people to use even more exploitative means. Unsustainable fisheries are one challenge requiring immediate resolution for fish stocks to recover naturally (with minimal inputs) and generate meaningful income for communities.

Destructive equipment and techniques. Many experts, including Dudley (2000) and community figures, had warned that using nylon warin nets would become serious threats to fish resources in DSNR Fishing equipment used regularly by communities in DSNP includejermal warin (a pocket net) and bubu warin (a kind of trap), empang putus (gill nets that block main rivers), poison, electricity, andjermal karam kemarau. Warin are fine-mesh nylon nets with a mesh spacing of less than 0.5 cm; these nets are responsible for dwindling fish numbers in lakes because they can catch up to 100 kg at a time and do not discriminate between adults and juveniles. Villagers frequently use warin not only for catching fish for their own consumption and for sale, but also for catching food for the giant snakehead fish, a voracious carnivore. Unsurprisingly, fishing communities in Tekenang, Semangit, Genting and Pulau Majang hamlets blame current diminishing fish catches on people rearing giant snakehead fish in cages.

Other problematic ways of catching fish are empang putus andjermal karam kemarau (funnel nets). Both are installed at the end of the dry season, to catch fish that come from upstream to their spawning grounds in lakes and rivers as they begin to flood. These nets reduce populations by preventing fish from reaching their spawning grounds. Fish trapped include large, high-value species, such as kelabau (Osteochilus melanopleura), lais bangah (Micronema micronemus), tapah (Wallago leeri) and tengalan (Puntioplites bulu).

Fish reproduction is also hindered by increasing areas of swamp forest clearing. The roots of swamp trees constitute hatcheries and shelter for such high-value species as belida (Chitala hypselonotus), arowana (Schleropages formosus (5)) and patik (Hemibagrus olyroides).

Chemical poisons and electric current. Before chemical poisons were introduced, there were no reports offish kills. Communities in and around DSNP traditionally used natural poisons made of sap from the roots or stems of plants such as tubal rabut, tubal benang, tubal dilah bayak, and tubal buah. These substances were originally used by ethnic Iban Dayaks to deter plant pests in their shifting cultivation systems but have also been used periodically to catch fish for home consumption.

Natural poisons would be applied on a single day when the water in rivers and lakes began to dry, usually around June. Poisons were applied by groups and involved customary rituals passed down from generation to generation. All families in the longhouse as well as people from other hamlets would be invited. Catches were used for family food needs and not for sale. Natural poisons were effective for only 4 km downstream. The fish would not die but be stupefied or have blurred vision. If not caught, fish would generally recover within 10 to 12 hours, though a small number would die.

The chemical poison often used today is potassium cyanide, which is far more potent and kills all fish. A number of cases offish kills are also thought to have resulted from wood preservation chemical compounds used on ramin wood transported along waterways. The effects last for years, since fish avoid places affected by chemical poisons, which may settle in the mud at the bottom of the water. The fish killed by

chemical poisons are quick to rot, with pale gills and a strong smell.

One of the most serious chemical poisonings in DSNP occurred in 1990, when the chemical endrin was used in the Seriang watershed, causing the death of 23 arowana parent stock fish whose value at that time was US$ 570 each. The poison was purchased in shops in Lubuk Antu. (6) Costly losses occurred again in 1994, when villagers poisoned the Seriang, Lawah, Sentarum and Tawang watersheds with potassium cyanide. All the toman (giant snakehead fish, Channa micropeltes), betutu (marble goby, Oxyeleotris marmorata) and jelawat (mad barb fish, Leptobarbus hoevenii) in cages in Pulau Majang, Lawah, Bukit Tekenang and Pengembung died. In 2006, the Seriang watershed was poisoned again, causing the deaths of caged giant snakehead and mad barb fish in Pulau Majang, incurring total losses of US$ 21,700-32,600.

Giant snakehead fish cage culture. The environmental implications of culturing this food fish in wooden cages have been recognized for many years (e.g., Dudley 2000; Wadley et al. 2000). The species is camivorous and can be quite fierce; the cage owners feed them with small fish freshly caught from the lake. One 1.5-by-l.5-by-2-m cage usually holds around 100 giant snakehead fish, which require 30 to 100 kg of food per day. If given insufficient food, the fish inside the cage will cannibalize each other.

Although expensive to rear, giant snakehead fish are still the most popular species raised in cages because they are a tolerant species and can adapt to low oxygen levels in water by taking oxygen from the air; mad barb fish would die. They also grow quickly and can reach marketable size in 10 to 12 months, as opposed to three years for mad barb fish. Rearing giant snakehead fish in cages is a sort of savings account and a hope for survival in DSNP as these fish are ready to sell after they reach around 1 kg in weight. (7)

The giant snakehead fish's huge food requirements push fishing communities to use jermal warin fishing platforms, which can catch fish of all sizes; large and small. With increasing numbers of villagers rearing giant snakehead fish, the population of wild fish has declined significantly. According to communities in DSNP, fish catches from the lakes have already fallen drastically and are now only just enough to meet daily needs.

Exploitation of high-value fish species. High-value fish include kujam merah (signal barb, Labiobarbus festivus), ketutung (shark minnow, Balantiocheilos melanopterus), ringau (tiger fish, Datnioides microlepis), ulang uli (clown loach, Botia macracantha) and arowana (Asian bonytongue, Schleropagesformosus). The arowana commands the highest prices. Based on observations by fishers and local villagers, some high-value species have become very rare or even extinct in the wild in a short time; high prices without prudent harvest systems or breeding techniques can be serious threats to fish and other natural resources.

The signal barb, for instance, first sought in 1972 at a price of IDR 5-10 per fish (equivalent to IDR 1,800-3,600 in 2007), had become extremely rare by 1987 and was no longer fished. The shark minnow was valued at IDR 20-50 per fish (equivalent to IDR 3,600-8,900 in 2007) and became rare within approximately 20 years. Now, shark minnow are no longer seen in the park.

The arowana is more valuable than other fish, and the super red strain in DSNP is the most valuable of all, because according to Chinese belief, they can bring luck and good fortune to their owners. Unsurprisingly, the main export destinations for this fish are China and other Far East countries. Arowana fishing began in 1982 and caused a drastic fall in the population in only 10 years. Meanwhile, demand continues to rise, causing prices to increase steadily year by year (Table 4).

Super red arowana are rare and nearly endangered in their natural habitat in DSNP, and are now found only around Meliau and Kenelang hamlets. Increasing scarcity in the wild and relatively stable high prices have motivated many villagers, particularly those in Suhaid and Selimbau, as well as people in large cities outside DSNP, to learn super red arowana breeding techniques. Since then, distributors and importers have bought super red arowana from breeders at current prices of around IDR 3 million to 5 million for one 4-5-cm fingerling, and more than IDR 30 million each for mother fish. Prices are determined by shape, color, scales, body shape and flawless eyeballs.

Another high-value fish is the clown loach, an ornamental fish that became popular in the aquarium trade in 1993. Prices per fish were IDR 50-200 from 1993 to 1997, 1DR 400-800 in 1997-2001, and IDR 800-1,200 in 2008-2009. Though not particularly expensive, it is caught in huge quantities in season - around 100 fish per day per household. In contrast to other fish species, the clown loach has not experienced a significant fall in catch, and harvest levels remain relatively stable.

The clown loach lives in Kapuas River and enters the park only to spawn, then returns to the river. The fish is usually caught when it enters the park during the seasonal flood or in the change from flood to dry season between December and April. The fact that they are caught for only several months of the year is presumed to help, but if prices do rise sharply, it is not inconceivable that the clown loach will decline.

Marble goby, tiger fish, tapah catfish, belida, and mad barb fish are regularly sold illegally to Malaysia through the Badau-Lubok Antu border crossing. Selling prices are higher in Malaysia than Indonesia, and transport is relatively easy, thus encouraging illegal trade.

Tiger fish have been traded for many years but the price was never high. They were an incidental by-catch when people caught clown loach, and the number of tiger fish caught was only 20 to 30 per catch. However, in late 2009, the price increased six times, from US$ .05 to US$ .35 per fingerling, and the number in each night's catch increased to 50 and as many as 300 fingerlings. This encouraged people to target tiger fish specifically, even by using warin nets. Some people were able to earn US$100 per night from catching and selling tiger fish.

As with other natural resources in the park region, many valuable fish species have become endangered or even extinct in the wild because of overexploitation. Decisions and management of natural resources are largely driven by market prices and competition over the open-access resources. The government and local people have made few, if any, attempts to protect the resources in the wild or cultivate them.

Introduction of nonnative fish species. The shrinking catches in DSNP have encouraged villagers to develop fish aquaculture, sometimes rearing nonnative species. The introduction of nonnative species, particularly those that could be invasive, may lead to the extinction of DSNP's native and endemic species.

White and yellow silver catfish (8) were reared by residents in the hamlets of Piasak, Nibung, Lupakmawang, Mawan, Bekuwan and Genting from 1999 to 2001. Fingerlings were brought from Pontianak by local businesspeople in Suhaid and sold to residents for US$ .05-.07 (IDR 800-1,000) each. In 2000, several people in Pungau, Pegah, Genting and Sekulat began rearing African catfish (Clarias gariepinus). Local fishers obtained fingerlings from fish traders who came to DSNP to buy giant snakehead fish, which they would take from Danau Sentarum to sell in the cities of Sintang and Pontianak. However, most African catfish in cages failed to survive. In 2003, a businessman from Suhaid brought more African catfish fingerlings from Pontianak and sold them for IDR 500 each. At first they were reared by people in Genting, and later in Sekulat, Semangit and other villages. Now only Semangit continues to rear this fish.

Beginning in 2006, people in Suhaid bred red-bellied pacu fish (Colossoma macropomum), a nonnative species, fingerlings of which were bought from the Fry Production Hatchery (BBI) in Anjungan, a small town near Pontianak. In the same year, the governor visited DSNP and distributed silver catfish fingerlings free to people in Tekenang; after several weeks all the fish had died. But villagers in Sekulat succeeded in rearing silver catfish and selling them in Lanjak. According to villagers, the silver catfish handed out by the governor in Tekenang were nonnative species, whereas those reared in Sekulat were the local yellow silver catfish species.

The dangers of introducing nonnative species to DSN P have yet to be researched, but we can learn from studies in other locations and other countries. Released into the wild, the African catfish can be an invasive species that threatens local species with its feeding habits, rapid reproduction, and ability to live in dirty water (Barua et al. 2000; Vitule et al. 2006). In Bangladesh, for example, the African catfish is one of the most disastrous invasive species because it has crowded out so many local species.

In late 2009, we found the South American apple-snail (Pomacea canaliculata) in Sekawi lake and Lupakmawang village. The snail lays its eggs on aquatic plants and the hulls of boats, and in this way spreads to other places quickly. It is one of worst pests to paddy and other crops in many places in Indonesia and therefore could threaten paddy and crop gardens in the DSNP area. The people of Lupakmawang said that the first specimen was brought by a Javanese Sintang resident who married a local woman. We also found that some people in this hamlet rear apple-snails in nets, for food.

The introduction and keeping of nonnative species is prohibited in conservation areas under Act No. 68/1998 Article 44, and violators can be charged under the law. However, law enforcement has risks and can be construed as violating a community's rights to make a living.

Even though DSNP and the Kapuas River have native fish species in addition to giant snakehead fish with high economic development potential, we found three underlying reasons for the introduction of nonnative species. First, the government and local people (like some international agencies) do not fully understand the risks of introducing nonnative species. Second, the government's fishery development program, including the fish fingerling subsidies, like many other agricultural and fishery programs in the country, is determined by the central government and therefore uses species common in Java. The selection of species is also often driven by the supplier companies that successfully lobby the government or win contracts. Third, many local people consider imported species more modern and developed. These reasons are linked and continuously happen.

Gold Mining

Gold mining in the protected area is often categorized as pertambangan emas tanpa ijin (PETI, illegal gold mining). In our view, however, whether it is legal or illegal, mining threatens the ecosystem and the health of local people. Two major factors make gold mining possible: investors and buyers, and permits from local government (which, in fact, does not have authority to grant mining permits).

Gold mining in Pengerak hamlet, in the Jongkong subdistrict, began in 1995 with a 200 [m.sup.2] area approximately 18 m deep at the foot of Semujan Hill, operated by an investor from Sarawak who had secured a permit from the Kapuas Hulu district head. The mining site is 2 km from the shore of the lake. The owner of the area, an elderly woman, received a monthly royalty of US$ 300 from the investor, whether or not any gold was found. Conflict between the villagers and the project stopped the operation, but in 2004, people began mining in the same location with an investor from Sintang district.

Gold mining ceased in July 2005 and resumed in May 2006, stopping temporarily during the dry season. The miners had no license from the Kapuas Hulu District Mining and Environment Office, only a permit from the head of the village and head of the fisher association.

Gold miners also operated in the Kantukasam and Sungaikantuk regions in 1998-1999 and dumped the tailings into the Empanang and Batang Tawang rivers. In 2006, miners operated in the Sungai Sedampak, Sungaitelian, and Martanjung regions (which had been mined in Dutch colonial times), and the tailings flowed into the Telian River and then on to the Majang River. Though the community tried to prevent tailings from entering the waterways, damage still occurred. Trees within a 500 m radius of the mining site died, presumably from mercury. Other hamlets with waterways connected to the mining site also became worried about the effect on fish and people if the lakes were contaminated with mercury. Despite the well-known danger of mercury contamination and other environmental consequences of gold mining, no significant action to stop the activities has been undertaken either by the DSNP authority or the district government.

Forest Fires

Forest fires break out almost every dry season in Danau Sentarum. People use fire for various purposes: clearing land before planting rice, vegetables and rubber; clearing water hyacinth from rivers; clearing plants from river shortcuts; and cooking in the forest. In some hamlets that have disputes over boundaries, the people use fire for burning tikung (artificial bee hives) placed in their forest by trespassers. Fires also ignite from discarded cigarette butts and lightning strikes. When winds fan the flames in hot, dry conditions, the fire can spread out of control. The most serious wildfire occurred in 1997, when the El Nino cycle lengthened the usual three-month dry season to seven months. The most difficult fires to extinguish are in peatland, which burn below the surface; the fire can spread easily to surrounding trees and peat fields when the wind blows.

One consequence of the 1997 forest fire was the loss of wild bee honey production, which resumed only in early 2000. Annual production of wild bee honey in DSNP was around 20-25 tons per group of gatherers, at an average price of IDR 15,000 (US$ 1-2) per kg. Consequently, losing honey production in 1998-1999 has caused losses of US$ 67,000 to $84,000 (9) per group. These losses do not include unquantifiable damage to ecosystems and other intangibles. (10)

Population Growth

DSNP has both permanent and seasonal populations. In 10 years, the total population increased by 55 percent, from around 6,500 in 1997 (Aglionby 1997) to 10,104 in 2007 (Indriatmoko, this volume), as detailed in Table 6.

This growth comes primarily from the increasing number of seasonal migrants, some arriving on their own initiative, others invited by relatives in DSNP; in addition, more seasonal migrants are becoming permanent settlers. Between 2005 and 2009, the annual population increase in several villages was 1.99 to 19.06 percent (Selimbau Subdistrict Office 2009).

The migrants come from the larger, surrounding villages of Selimbau, Lanjak, Suhaid, Semitau, Jongkong and Badau during the dry season to catch fish, stay in several smaller hamlets, then return to their homes at the beginning of the flood season. Permanent settlement began with the onset of fish trading in Saka Jongkong in 1992. Beginning in 1998-1999, immigrants settled to tend their fish cages, which need daily feeding. As temporary shelters become permanent settlements, the number of inhabitants continues to grow. In the last few years, seasonal fishing families have come not only from neighboring subdistricts, but also from Sintang, Sambas and other regions. If they marry locals, their families often visit, and some of them become permanent residents as well.

The growing number of people entering and settling in DSNP is one of the main causes of declining availability of the resources, and one of the greatest threats to the sustainability of its ecosystems through reciprocal means. The growing population has increased pressure on natural resources and space for living. Traditional resource management cannot meet the needs of the park's ever-growing population, or people's

desire for modemization and development, even though Western lifestyles are not entirely replicable in this rural context. Many immigrants ignore traditional values or do not recognize or acknowledge customary rules; they come into the park looking for income and may exploit resources for personal gain.

Unintended Consequences and Contradictory Policies

Government policies and programs have constantly bedeviled DSNP management. Some examples of the policy and program, including direct and indirect relation with ecosystem degradation are described below.

Fertilizer and pesticide aid. Government policy to support community economic development through agriculture frequently fails to consider the environmental consequences. It is not clear whether government officials are unaware of the effects or simply do not want to know. For example, in 2007, the Kapuas Hulu District Agriculture Office provided aid packets in the form of hybrid plant varieties (bibit unggul), chemical fertilizers, and pesticides to communities at the foot of Bukit Semujan. According to staff from the district agriculture office, the aid packets came from the central government and had to be distributed, even though hybrid varieties, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides could conflict with the aims of conservation.

Dam construction plans. Government officials have often put forward plans to dam Danan Sentarum. In January 1995, during a workshop on development of Danau Sentarum Nature Reserve, the Ministry of Public Works announced its desire to dam Danau Sentarum with funding support from the Japanese government. Later, in 2003, during the West Kalimantan World Environment Day celebrations in Lanjak, the governor of West Kalimantan reiterated the idea to dam Danau Sentarum, "...so it doesn't dry out, and fish can continue to reproduce." This environmentally detrimental development plan was actually proposed during the ceremony to formalize Kapuas Hulu District's status as a conservation district, in front of the Deputy Minister of the Environment. The proposal's backers did not realize that Danau Sentarum, like many wetlands, naturally dries during the dry season and that the local plants, animals and people are adapted to the phenomenon. In long dry seasons, the lakes in the park can dry out completely. Damming Danau Sentarum could have drastic detrimental effects on water quality, hydrology functions, fish populations and local people's income and health (Yuliani et al. 2007).

Lack of consideration for social impacts. Some well-intended programs have backfired because they failed to consider the social aspects. For example, government and NGO reforestation and rehabilitation programs that focused on hamlets with burned or degraded forests created an incentive for hamlets with intact forests to cut and burn their forests so that they could get help, too (Box 1). Such reactions were also reported by Prasetyo (2008). Programs that are intended to fix a problem end up causing more damage because of envy and misinterpretation. Just as when the government provided rubber hybrid varieties, many people cut trees and burned their land to become eligible for the assistance. These examples suggest a need for better understanding of local people's perceptions and better communication between agencies.

Another example of community resistance to ecosystem protection efforts involves conservation projects, rules, and research that have no benefits (or appear to have no benefits) for local communities. As a region with extremely high levels of biodiversity, the park was designated a Ramsar site, making it important on the international level and attracting many researchers from Indonesia and overseas. Many people living in the park, however, do not know why there are so many conservation projects or see any benefit in the research. Some believe that making the park a conservation area limits their activities.

Many community members are unclear about the different roles played by NGOs and government and frequently confuse them. On one occasion, villagers vented their anger on a team of NGO researchers, thinking they represented the government after an official had let them down. Communities rarely understand what NGOs actually do. They are unsure why community facilitation takes place in some hamlets but not in others, leading to social resentment. Confusion over the projects and roles of different organizations and their impact on communities makes them suspicious and reluctant to participate. This is a significant constraint to the success of conservation programs designed for collaborative management with communities as major actors. (11)

Box 1. Perverse Incentives

In 2001 2002, Riak Bumi, a local NGO working with the Kapuas
Watershed Management Agency, and local communities planted trees
that are important food for bees in areas that had been affected by
forest fires. Plants that provide sources of nectar and pollen for
honeybees had become scarce, reducing harvests of forest honey. The
aim was to reforest bare areas with putat and masung trees, two
species that increase forest honey production and benefit local
communities, for whom honey is the second most important source of
income, after fish.

Similar reforestation projects were undertaken in some hamlets in
Danau Sentarum under a national program. Called GERHAN, this
Ministry of Forestry program aimed at rehabilitating critical land
and degraded forest. In April 2006, 250 families in each of two
villages were given 125,000 omat (grafted) rubber seedlings, 18,000
stink bean (Parkia speciosa) seedlings, 30,000 jack (Peronema
canescens) seedlings and 12,000 agarwood (Aquilaria spp.)
seedlings. The government provided hybrid varieties especially for
villages whose land was categorized as burned over, degraded, or
non-forested. During in-depth informal discussions, we discovered
that most villagers had burned their forests just to secure
seedlings from the district government.

Regional fragmentation and "development" policies. Since 2006, several fishing hamlets have been granted permanent village administrative status, and there are plans for establishing a new subdistrict in the region. This is part of a government decentralization policy called pemekaran (establishment of new provinces, districts, subdistricts, and villages). As a consequence, some temporary fishing settlements inside the park have formal status as permanent settlements.

The communities hope the provision of village and subdistrict status within the park will improve their welfare, and expect the government will build public facilities such as schools, community health centers, and administrative offices. Interviewing local elites, we also found that the new village and subdistrict status was also motivated by their personal interests: they expect to become heads of villages or subdistricts, or members of a local legislative assembly, which will increase their social status and entitle them to some financial benefits.

In most cases in Indonesia, regional fragmentation has led to overexploitation of natural resources, with less evidence of any improvement in local people's welfare, except for the elites. On the one hand, development of public facilities, especially inside protected areas, could help improve well-being. On the other hand, it would spur rapid growth in the number of park residents and associated demand for space and natural resources. Conservation NGOs, scientists and other external actors who would encourage prohibition of the establishment of villages and a subdistrict inside the park should reconsider and communicate carefully to avoid giving the impression that human interests come second to conservation.

Rising fuel prices. Rising and highly inflated global fuel prices have had a huge impact on community economies in many rural places in Indonesia, including in DSNP, and become an indirect cause of deforestation and natural resource overexploitation. In DSNP, the main fuel requirement is for river transport, consisting of outboard motors, speedboats, and motor boats for fishing and for traveling between hamlets, to school and to surrounding towns. Community members also need fuel to run household electricity generators.

Fuel prices in and around DSNP, as in other remote areas in Indonesia, are higher than the government standard. In places that rely on water transport, access becomes even more difficult during the dry season, and causes fuel prices to rise higher than in the rainy season.

The Government of Indonesia raised fuel prices three times between 1 March 2005 and 24 May 2008. When prices fell again, retail prices in DSNP remained at their peak levels (Table 7).

Fuel prices rose dramatically on 1 October 2005. By 2007, the average family in Sungai Pelaik was spending IDR 51,300 a day, or IDR 1,540,000 a month--68 percent of their income--on fuel (Table 8), which left only 32% for food and other needs, such as education and health. This figure does not include fuel for cooking because park inhabitants have switched from kerosene to firewood.

To balance the rising expenditures on fuel, local people are developing community rubber estates and increasing their fish catches, both of which have a negative effect on the park's ecosystems, as explained earlier. The high price of kerosene has also intensified demand for firewood, which often means cutting trees. In these ways, the increasing global and national fuel prices have led to deforestation and overexploitation of the fishery.

Institutional and bureaucratic challenges. A number of institutional and bureaucratic challenges contribute to ecosystem degradation and resource overexploitation in DSNP and surrounding areas. From 1999 to early 2007, the park was managed minimally by the West Kalimantan Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA). There were only three forest rangers, who worked without an adequate operational budget--they had a speedboat for patrols, for instance, but no budget for fuel. Consequently, illicit activities in the park, such as commercial logging, wildlife hunting, use of exploitative fishing equipment, and environmental damage, often went unnoticed. Moreover, the rangers' salary payments were often delayed up to 10 months. According to the agency, the staffing and budgets were all organized by the central government. The inadequate staffing and support may indicate the central government's level of priority for the conservation of DSNP.

Establishment of the park authority's Technical Implementation Unit (UPT) in February 2007 (Minister of Forestry Regulation No. P.03/Menhut-II/2007) did not immediately mean better protection of the DSNP ecosystem. In 2008, the operational budget for the park authority, as well as many other government offices, was reallocated by the central government for fuel price subsidies. Another problem associated with the national bureaucracy system is the recruitment and placement system. The well-intended effort to devolve and decentralize responsibilities and develop collaboration with stakeholders, including local communities, faltered because the staff was not sufficiently trained and knowledgeable. Of the 38 staff appointed to work in the DSNP authority, only two come from the area and know its biophysical and social conditions. In addition, internal power struggles among midlevel staff have often hampered the progress of park programs and the effectiveness of its management.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Even though its surrounding areas are highly degraded, Danau Sentarum National Park and its buffer zones still have many natural riches--resources that many people want to use and exploit. Community-level decisions on land use and natural resource management systems are often based on traditional and customary rules or community-based income-generating activities, particularly in communities that have lived in DSNP for decades. However, many people are now attracted by the opportunities that regional fragmentation and illegal logging represent. Some others, particularly immigrants, base their decisions on short-term economic considerations, since they have come to DSNP to make a living.

Things are not so different at the district and central government levels. Power, short-term economics and the interests of investors are the main considerations in policy making. Spatial planning at the national, provincial and district levels generally ignores the functions and long-term benefits provided by ecosystems. The conservation and preservation of forest, wetland, and other ecosystems are never priorities.

Conservation programs, be they action or research, should be designed to provide real benefits for communities who have protected their forests. Methods and approaches should be designed to build self-motivation and self-organization among communities and other stakeholders so that the programs can continue without depending on external input or intervention. Another urgent need is local income-generating activities compatible with the principles of conservation. Programs appropriate for DSNP include ecotourism and community arowana development. Local communities should be made aware that introducing nonnative species can endanger their resources and that culturing nonnative carnivorous species, such as the African catfish, will cause the same problems as keeping giant snakeheads. Production of local species should be encouraged.

Communication and relations between the park authority and the Kapuas Hulu district government need to improve so that the former's collaborative management concept and the latter's conservation district designation can be mutually supportive. For conservation and community welfare to coexist and be mutually reinforcing, key stakeholders must develop their knowledge and capacity to understand and carry out conservation efforts, collaborative management and proconservation income-generating activities. Other important issues are law enforcement and sanctions for violations, integration of customary law and local rules in formal regulations, and a larger role for communities in park supervision and law enforcement.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the donors, the Ford Foundation and the EU-funded Gemconbio Project for their funding support, and our home institutions, Riak Bumi Foundation and C1FOR for their co-financing, technical and conceptual support. The views expressed in this article remain our personal views and do not necessarily reflect either the donors' or our home institutions' views. We also thank the local communities in and around DSNP, the Ministry of Forestry, Danau Sentarum National Park Authority, Kapuas Hulu District Government, Titian Foundation, WWF, Sawit Watch, Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Richard G. Dudley, Moira Moeliono, Terry Sunderland, Bruce Campbell, Doris Capistrano, Mohammad Agus Salim, Bagus Hargo Utomo, Yuan Oktafian, Sufiet Erlita, Fitri Heryani, Wiwit Siswarini, Rahayu Koesnadi, Dina Hubudin, Charlotte Soeria, Titin Suhartini, Suci Ningsih, Hari Sukmara, Henny Linawati, lr. Soewignyo, Budi Suriansyah, Bambang Dahat, Jefri Irwanto, Yuyun Kurniawan, Seselia Ernawati, Jim Sammy, Zul MS, Andi Erman, Ade Mohammad Abas, Ade Mahadeli, Ade Bujani, Abdul Mu'in and all anonymous reviewers of this article.

References

Aglionby, J. 1997 Database of social economic survey of Wetlands International project.

Barua, S.P., M.M.H. Kha and A.H.M. All Reza 2000 The Status of Alien Invasive Species in Bangladesh and Their Impact on the Ecosystems. Bangladesh: IUCN, World Conservation Union.

Dennis, R.A. and I. Kurniawan 2000 Tropical Forest Cover Monitoring in Indonesia. TREES II Project. Joint Research Centre and CIFOR.

Dudley, R.G. 2000 The Fishery of Danau Sentarum. Borneo Research Bulletin 31:261-306.

Erman, A. 2005 Investigation Report on Wildlife Trading; Orangutan and Lempiau (Hylobates sp.) in the Border of Kapuas Hulu District, Indonesia and Sarawak Malaysia. Unpublished report. Pontianak: Yayasan Titian and Yayasan Riak Bumi.

Giesen, W. 2000 Flora and Vegetation of Danau Sentarum: Unique Lake and Swamp Forest Ecosystem of West Kalimantan. Borneo Research Bulletin 31:89-122.

Giesen, W. and J. Aglionby 2000 Introduction to Danau Sentarum National Park, West Kalimantan. Borneo Research Bulletin 31:5-28.

Hardin, G. 1968 The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 13 162 (3859):1243-1248.

Jeanes, K. 1997 Guidelines for Conservation Management: Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan. Pontianak: Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation of Indonesia Ministry of Forestry, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Wetlands international Indonesia Programme (WIIP).

Jeanes, K. and E. Meijaard 2000a Danau Sentarum's Wildlife Part l: Biodiversity Value and Global Importance. Borneo Research Bulletin 31 : 150-229.

2000b Danau Sentarum's Wildlife Part 2: Habitat Characteristics and Biodiversity Contribution. Borneo Research Bulletin 31:230-245.

Kompas 2008 Produksi CPO Kalbar Turun (CPO Production from West Kalimantan is Declining). 24 November.

Martinez, 0.J. 1994 The Dynamics of Border Interaction: New Approaches to Border Analysis. In: C.H. Schofield, Global Boundaries, World Boundaries, Vol. I. London: Routledge.

Pouyand, L., [N]. Sudarto and G.G. Teugels 2003 The Different Colour Varieties of the Asian Arowana Scleropages formosus (Osteoglossidae) are Distinct Species: Morphological and Genetic Evidences. Cybium 27 (4):287-305.

Prasetyo, L.B. 2008 Is Funding for Conservation on the Right Track? Some Ideas for Improvement. Paper presented at International Association for the Study of the Commons conference, Cheltenham, UK, 14-18 July.

Russon, A.E., A. Erman and R. Dennis 2001 The Population and Distribution of Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus) in and around the Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 97:21-28.

Sawit Watch 2005 4,3 juta ha lahan untuk sawit terlantar (4.3 Million Hectares for Abandoned Oil Palm Estate). Bogor: Sawit Watch.

Sebastian, A.C. 2000 Proboscis Monkeys in Danau Sentarum National Park. Borneo Research Bulletin 31:359-371.

Selimbau Subdistrict Office 2009 Selimbau demography data. Selimbau Subdistrict Office.

Sunderlin, W.D. and I.A.P. Resosudarmo 1996 Rates and causes of deforestation in Indonesia: towards a resolution of the ambiguities. CIFOR Occasional Paper 9 (E). Bogor: CIFOR.

van Balen, S. and R.H. Dennis 2000 Birds of Danau Sentarum. Borneo Research Bulletin 31:336-358.

Vitule, J.R.S., S.C. Umbria and J.M.R. Aranh 2006 Introduction of the African catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) into Southern Brazil. Biological Invasions 8:677-681.

Wadley, R.L. and M. Eilenberg 2005 Autonomy, Identity, and "Illegal" Logging in the Borderland of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 6 (1): 1934.

2006 Vigilantes and Gangsters in the Borderland of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: A. Horstmann (ed.), State, People and Borders in Southeast Asia. Special Issue of Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia 7.

Wadley, R.L., R.A. Dennis, E. Meijaard, A. Erman, V. Heri and W. Giesen 2000 After the Conservation Project: Danau Sentarum National Park and its Vicinity--Conditions and Prospects. Borneo Research Bulletin 31:385401.

West Kalimantan Fisheries Office no date 2006 West Kalimantan Fisheries Data. In: West Kalimantan Online Statistics. http://kaibar.bps.go.id/tabel/Tabel%206%20ikan.htm.

Yuliani, E.L., Y. Indriatmoko and V. Heri 2007 Apa yang Terjadi Jika Danau Sentarum Dibendung? (What Is Likely to Happen If Danau Sentarum Is Dammed?). CIFOR-Riak Bumi Newsletter 1(2).

Valentinus Heri

Riak Bumi Foundation

dl. Putri Data Itam, Gy. Tani No. 1

Pontianak, West Kalimantan, Indonesia

[email protected]

Elizabeth Linda Yuliani

Center for International Forestry Research

JL. CIFOR, Sindang Barang

Bogor, West Java, Indonesia

Email: [email protected]

Yayan Indriatmoko

Center for International Forestry Research

JL. CIFOR, Sindang Barang

Bogor, West Java, Indonesia

[email protected]

(1) Subdistrict towns are located outside DSNP. This is obvious at election time, when people from the park have to travel to the subdistrict towns to register as subdistrict residents, rather than as residents of fishing settlements inside DSNP where they live and fish.

(2) PT. Yamaker was a military-owned HPH, founded through Surat Menteri Pertahanan No. 79/11-1967, I November 1967; it started operation in 1969. Yamaker was located along the border between Indonesia and Malaysia in Borneo and covered 265,000 ha. According to the decree, Yamaker aimed to "improve the protection of Indonesia's territory, and empower communities economically and socially." Its concession was handed over to the Minister of Defense through Presidential Decree 44/1994, then to the Ministry of Forestry through Presidential Decree 63/1999. PT Yamaker is now managed by the State's Concession (Perum Perhutani).

(3) Pegah is also written as "Pega" or "Vega."

(4) Cooked weight for smoked fish.

(5) There is taxonomic dispute over the name of this species. Some refer to it as Scleropages legendrei, a new name proposed by Pouyaud et al. (2003).

(6) Endrin is illegally traded in Lanjak and can be bought for US$ 5/litre.

(7) Giant snakehead fish growth depends on the species and amount of food. With enough food, giant snakehead fish grow to a weight of 1.2 kg in 10 to 12 months. With less food, it can take two years for a fish to weigh 1 kg.

(8) The scientific names for these catfish could not be determined because no individuals survived.

(9) During 1998-1999 the exchange rate fluctuated abruptly, with US$1 ranging between IDR 7,800 and 10,200.

(10) There are more than 30 groups of wild bee honey gatherers in Danau Sentarum. Annual production per group varies widely.

(11) The Danau Sentarum National Park Management Plan (RPTN-DS) was prepared in 2006-2007 with the participation of local communities, NGOs and research organizations. The West Kalimantan Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA) was originally responsible for preparing the management plan, but later delegated the task to the park authority. Participatory preparation methods were designed by Riak Bumi, Yayasan Titian, Unit Koordinasi Kalbar (UKK), CIFOR and Tropenbos. The park authority has a commitment to apply a collaborative management model.

Table 1. Price classification, by wood type

 Price per
 Classification Species tan (USD)

1 Ramin Ramin (Gonystylus spp.) 329

2 Jelutung Jelutung (Dyera spp.) 211

3 Red meranti Pukul kawi (Cotylelobium burkii) 158-184

 Tekam (Shorea sp.)

 Keladan (Dryobalanops sp.)

4 Meranti Perawan (Shorea sp.) 132

 Pukul perawan baya or pengerawan
 buaya (Shorea uliginosa)

 Merkunyit (Garcinia sp.)

5 Tengkawang Enkabang (Shorea smithiana) 132

6 Red wood Kelansau (Dryobalanops sp.) 118

 Penyau (Upuna borneensis)

7 Kapur wood Keruin or Keruing (Dipterocarpus sp.) 84-100

 Resak (Vatica oblongifolia)

8 M-less Kayu medang (Lauraceae, e.g. Litsea 74-90
 sp., Alseodaphne coreacea)

 Gerunggang (Cratoxylum arborescens)

 Sempetir (Sindora leiocarpa)

 Merbau (lntsia spp.)

 Rengas (Gluta renghas or Swintonia
 spp.)

 Pitoh (Swintonia spp.)

 Entangor or Mentangur (Calophyllum
 sp.)

 Ketuntum or Maripat (Combretocarpus
 rotundifolius)

Table 2. Oil palm allocations and plantings in Kalimantan

Province Area allocated (ha) Area planted (ha)

West Kalimantan 1,500,000 ** 427,000 *
East Kalimantan 2,000,000 ** 303,000 **
Central Kalimantan 1,800,000 ** 438,000 **
South Kalimantan 500,000 ** 391,000 **

Province Percentage planted

West Kalimantan 25.47
East Kalimantan 15.15
Central Kalimantan 24.33
South Kalimantan 78.20

Sources: * Kompas (2008), ** Sawit Watch (2005)

Table 3. Road construction in and around DSNP, 2000-2007

Year Location Builder

2000-2002 From Piyam to Kenelang hamlet Illegal logging
 business people

2002-2003 From Kekurak and Illegal logging
 Sungaitelian to Seriang business people

2002-2003 From Empaik to Seriang Illegal logging
 business people

2002-2003 From Guntul hamlet to Illegal logging
 Perayung hill business people

2002-2003 From Indonesia's Libung, Indonesia, Illegal logging
 to Sungai Sebabai and Wong Kapit, business people
 Malaysia, passing Kibung, Sumpak
 Layang, Bakul I, II dan III, Kelum,
 Kelawik, and Nanga Entebuluh
 hamlets

2003 Former logging road from Empaik to Illegal logging
 lake area, widened business people,
 and improved based on
 community of
 Empaik requests

2003 From Libung intersection to Sungai Illegal logging
 Sebabai business people

2003-2004 From Tangit II and Tangit IV PT Plantana
 to Sungai Senunuk, to illegal Razindo
 logging port in Geraji Lake

2003-2004 From Seriang to Wong Panjai an Illegal logging
 Batu Kaya, Malaysia business people

2004 From sawmill at Guntul Illegal logging
 down Guntul watershed, Nanga business people
 Jabang, Senunuk watershed, to
 Tembawai Galang (also known as
 Padang Bilun)

2004 Road intersection before First built by PT
 Payak Encawit to Sungai Luar, Yamaker up to
 Peninjau I and II hamlets Sungai Luar, and
 continued by
 illegal logging
 business people
 up to Peninjau I
 and II

2004 From Lanjak to Tekalong and Kapuas Hulu
 Bejabang government

2004 From Sungai Santak in Manggin Kapuas Hulu
 hamlet, crossing over Leboyan River government

2005 From Kelawik stretching into Batu Illegal logging
 Peti hill forest to edge of BKNP business people

2005 From Sumpak Layang north, Illegal logging
 crossing hills that border business people
 Indonesia and Malaysia

2007 From Empaik to Sungaitembaga Kapuas Hulu
 government

2007 From Bejabang to Kedungkang Kapuas Hulu
 government

2002-2007 Lorry trails and bicycle trails, from Illegal logging
 logging camps in hamlets business people
 to main roads

Year Land type

2000-2002 Peat swamp forest

2002-2003 Peat swamp forest

2002-2003 Peat swamp
 forests of
 Sebadin

2002-2003 Hill and lowland
 forests

2002-2003 Hill and lowland
 forests

2003 Lowland and
 swamp forests

2003 Small rivers
 (blocked),
 pristine forests
 of Betung Kerihun
 National Park, 6
 km into park

2003-2004 Lowland and
 swamp forests

2003-2004 Hill forests

2004 Hill and lowland
 forests

2004 Hill and lowland
 forests

2004 Hill and lowland
 forests

2004 Hill and lowland
 forests

2005 Hill forests

2005 Hill and lowland
 forests

2007 Lowland and swamp
 forests

2007 Lowland and swamp
 forests

2002-2007

Table 4. Prices for arowana hatchlings from DSNP

 Price per hatchling (S cm)

Year Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

1982-1985 (i) IDR 3,000 IDR 25,000 US$ 2 US$ 14
1986-1989 (i) 40,000 175,000 22 97
1990-1991 (ii) 300,000 1,250,000 136 568
1991-1992 (ii) 1,250,000 2,500,000 568 1,136
004-2005 (iii) 4,800,000 (v) 5,000,000 (v) 516 538
006-2007 (iv) 1,500,000 1,600,000 150 160
008-2009 (iv) 1,700,000 2,000,000 190 200
Dec 2009 (iv) 2,200,000 2,200,000 220 220

Source: Interviews with arowana farmers.

(i) US$1 = IDR 1,800

(ii) US$1 = IDR 2,200

(iii) US$1 = IDR 9,300

(iv) US$1 = IDR 10,000

(v) Using Indonesian rupiah, the highest price was in 2004-2005. But
converted into U.S. dollars, the highest price was in 1991-1992. The
high 2004-2005 price was caused by high demand, disappearing stock
from the wild and only a small number of arowana farmers.

Table 5. Large dry-season wildfires in DSNP

Year Area (ha)

July 1973 5,483
August 1990 9,045
January 1994 11,105
May-June 1997 18,905

Source: Dennis & Kurniawan (2000).

Table 6. Permanent and seasonal settlements and population in DSNP,
1997-2007

 Settlements Population

Year Permanent Seasonal Total Permanent Seasonal Total

1997 33 6 39 -- -- 6,500
2007 37 6 43 9,478 626 10,104

Table 7. Government standard and prevailing DSNP prices for fuel
(in IDR)

 Premium petrol *

 Government Average in
 standard DSNP

Before 28 Feb 05 1810 2500
1 Mar-30 Sep 05 2400 5000
1 Oct 05-23 May 08 4500 7500
24 May 08-29 Nov 08 6000 8000
1-14 Dec 08 5500 7500
15 Dec 08-14 Jan 09 5000 8000
15 Jan 2009-Aug 09 4500 8000

 Kerosene

 Government Average in
 standard DSNP

Before 28 Feb 05 1800 2000
1 Mar-30 Sep 05 2200 3500
1 Oct 05-23 May 08 2000 5000
24 May 08-29 Nov 08 2500 6000
1-14 Dec 08 2500 6000
15 Dec 08-14 Jan 09 2500 6000
15 Jan 2009-Aug 09 2500 6000

 Diesel oil

 Government Average in
 standard DSNP

Before 28 Feb 05 1650 2500
1 Mar-30 Sep 05 2100 5000
1 Oct 05-23 May 08 4300 6500
24 May 08-29 Nov 08 5500 8000
1-14 Dec 08 5500 7500
15 Dec 08-14 Jan 09 4800 7500
15 Jan 2009-Aug 09 4500 8000

* In DSNP, petrol is mixed with oil.

Table 8. Household fuel requirements in Pelaik hamlet

 Fuel Price per
 liter (IDR)

Buying everyday needs, selling fish 5 litres of 8,000
and rubber in Semalah petrol a day

Lighting (kerosene lamps) 1 litre of 6,000
 kerosene a
 night

Traveling to Lanjak to visit children 20 litres of 8,000
at school, deposit money, go petrol a month
shopping, receive health care

Total per household *

 Cost (IDR)

Buying everyday needs, selling fish 40,000 a day
and rubber in Semalah 1,200,000 a month

Lighting (kerosene lamps) 6,000 a day
 180,000 a month

Traveling to Lanjak to visit children 5,300 a day
at school, deposit money, go 160,000 a month
shopping, receive health care

Total per household * 51,300 a day
 1,540,000 a month
 68% of average income **

* Sometimes several members of different families travel together and
share costs, so it is difficult to determine exactly how many people
travel, their destinations and the amount of fuel used. The main
sources of these comparatively high incomes are rubber and fish.

** Source of average income data: Indriatmoko (this volume).